A Framework for Combining Optimization-Based and Analytic Inverse Kinematics
About
Analytic and optimization methods for solving inverse kinematics (IK) problems have been deeply studied throughout the history of robotics. The two strategies have complementary strengths and weaknesses, but developing a unified approach to take advantage of both methods has proved challenging. A key challenge faced by optimization approaches is the complicated nonlinear relationship between the joint angles and the end-effector pose. When this must be handled concurrently with additional nonconvex constraints like collision avoidance, optimization IK algorithms may suffer high failure rates. We present a new formulation for optimization IK that uses an analytic IK solution as a change of variables, and is fundamentally easier for optimizers to solve. We test our methodology on three popular solvers, representing three different paradigms for constrained nonlinear optimization. Extensive experimental comparisons demonstrate that our new formulation achieves higher success rates than the old formulation and baseline methods across various challenging IK problems, including collision avoidance, grasp selection, and humanoid stability.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inverse Kinematics | Arm on a Table | Mean Runtime0.02 | 9 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Arm on a Table | Success Rate91.44 | 9 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Arm on a Table | Average Optimal Cost11.3 | 9 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Grasp Selection | Mean Runtime0.15 | 7 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Mobile Manipulator | Mean Runtime0.17 | 7 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Mobile Manipulator | Average Optimal Cost3.44 | 7 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Mobile Manipulator | Success Rate71.82 | 7 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Bimanual Mobile Manipulator | Mean Runtime0.18 | 6 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Bimanual Mobile Manipulator | Success Rate78.19 | 6 | |
| Inverse Kinematics | Bimanual Mobile Manipulator | Average optimal cost25.5 | 6 |